Grace & Knowledge

Posted By Brett on September 1, 2010

Here is an exchange I had a while back that I thought may of interest to some. It was a good in house discussion on the relationship between faith (belief or doctrine) and works. My comments are in black

I want to say much, but it all boils down to my belief that Love does, indeed, trump “correct theology.” Mostly because Love is unconditionally, unquestionably, and perfectly illustrated & spelled out in the blood of Christ and His resurrection;

But don’t you see that that is theology? You cannot separate it. You cannot have the love you spell out above without a corresponding christology. You cannot speak meaningfully about the blood without a corresponding doctrine of atonement. The resurrection of Christ, and all that signifies, is theology.

whereas Theology is a perpetually murky territory in which the definition of “correct” is more a matter of who fights best, not whose truth is actually True. We’ve debated everything for centuries, started wars over it all, and all we’ve got to show for it are bodies strewn about and an increasingly fractured Body of Christ.

I think that is a false dichotomy. The displays of “love” on daytime talk shows are murkier yet. The strange love triangles and twisted relationships on display are good examples of people seeking love without thinking properly about it. And we would be sadly mistaken to think that the behavior on these shows is out of the ordinary. It is tragically too common. “But that is not real love” you may object. That is exactly the point. We need a good understanding of what love should look like. We need a theology of charity.

Moreover, do you see how you just mingled doctrine and works? Ideas have consequences. Bad theology promotes war and bloodshed. If you want to stop the bloodshed you have to get to the level of ideas. In as much as you are arguing for good works you are promoting a certain doctrine of Christian ethics (and that is good!) We need people like you to challenge the ideas and thinking of the rest of us. And you need the rest of us to challenge your ideas and thinking. Bad theology begets bad works (the fighting and wars you spoke of).

That’s not to say we shouldn’t engage our minds as an act of Love and worship. But too often the study of doctrine becomes a tower of babel, a means of reaching God and alienating those who aren’t ready to climb.

Then it is not good theology (notice how Christ uses doctrine to correct bad works in Mark 7:1-12). Doctrine is a belief; it is a set of teachings. If you agree that the parable of the good Samaritan was a set of good teaching then you agree to good doctrine. Every time you type on the keyboard you are promoting a set of beliefs – we all do. The only question is whether it is good doctrine or bad doctrine.

It’s not a starting place.

It is the only starting place. Thoughts precede actions. Whether they belong to you or someone else, thoughts precede actions.

From what I can tell, there’s one doctrine on which everything else hinges, and everything else is up for debate.

I like what Spurgeon said. He said that all doctrine is important but not all of it is essential. My heart and lungs are essential for my existence, my arm and nose are not. Since my arm and nose are not essential should I therefore chop them off? Not at all. They are still important. The fact that you argue for a certain ethic founded on a certain doctrine of charity which is an overflow of your christology etc betrays your statement that everything is up for debate.

And when the debate becomes violent (as it often does), it’s paramount to lay down it down and favor Love.

If it leads to violence, then it is not good doctrine. Shall I use the fact of bad works and fights to argue that therefore we should not do actions at all? From a technical standpoint, if it is the fights and wars you have issues with then you are really arguing against bad works. Shall I use that fact to argue that therefore good ideas trump works?

Cause neither of us will ever know if we’re actually truly right.

That’s not true (ironically). The fact that you argue against fighting means that you hold a certain set if Christian ethics that you believe is right.

That’s the inherent risk because we’re flawed.

Both action and thoughts have risk associated with them. Both can be sinful. Both need to be taken captive for the sake of Christ.

You may believe I’m totally wrong about something, or vice versa. And I’m totally OK with that, so long as you’re not judging my faith to be inauthentic or fruitless and telling me I might as well renounce Christ.

Are you saying that such an act of judgment would be wrong? If so then you believe that we can know what is right.

(Which is why I posted the original statement in the first place…because one Believer actually said that to another.)

And so you are promoting a certain doctrine of unity that you believe is found in scripture.

But Love for one another based in our alliance as sinners in need of Christ’s perfect grace – however it reveals itself in each of us – can only bind us together.

Exactly. You are promoting a doctrine of unity based upon your doctrine of anthropology (the universal sinfulness of man) and your doctrine of ecclesiology (how we are joined as a people in Christ).

Which is why I believe it trumps manmade, fallible doctrine.

The issue was never about man made fallible doctrine (as if that’s what I promote). Take away the fancy words (anthropology, Christology, doctrine, etc), they are not important. The point is that you have certain beliefs (doctrines) about Jesus (Christology), Man (anthropology), and good works (orthopraxy). We cannot separate doctrine and works. We cannot pit them against each other. This is not “either/or” but “both/and.”

Category: Interpretation, Living, Theology | No Comments »
Tags:

Posted By Brett on August 30, 2010

Have you ever noticed what prayers look like in scripture? There are prayers of women that they may have children. There are prayers for deliverance from some danger. There are prayers for blessings and prayers for cursing. But while there are prayers for many different things, there are some prayers that are more frequent than others.
I looked at the New Testament and I began to work my way back from the book of Revelation. I stopped after I had three pages of passages on prayer. This is not an exhaustive study, but it is a representative sample. Regarding the requests that were made, I found that there was:

• 1 explicit request for salvation (Rom 10:1)
• 1 exhortation to pray for interpretation (1 Cor 14:13)
• 2 prayers for physical healing (1 John 5:16; James 5:16)
• 7 prayers for God to change circumstances (Rom 1:10; 2 Cor1:10-11; Phil 1:19; Philemon 1:22; Hebrews 13:18-19). Especially:
  • Col 4:3-4 At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison— 4 that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.
  • 1 Thess 3:10 we pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith
• 13 prayers for spiritual life (3 John 1:2; 2 Cor 13:7, 9; Eph 6:17-20; Phil 1:9; Col 4:12; 2 Thess 1:11; 2 Thess 3:1; Philemon 1:4-6; 1 John 5:16; James 5:16) especially:
  • Eph 1:16-18 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
  • Eph 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
  • Col 1:9-10 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

The prayers for our spiritual well-being and vitality out number all the other requests combined. That is fascinating to me. What’s more, if you look more closely at the other passages, many of them turn out to be about the very same thing. It should be obvious that praying for someone to be saved is also praying for their spiritual life and vitality. The exhortation to pray for interpretation is so that other people would be edified; so again this is fundamentally a prayer for the spiritual well being of people.
Many of the prayers for a change of circumstances is for the purpose of ministering to other people. When Paul prays to be released from prison (a request for change in circumstances) it is not just so he can get out of prison. Paul wants to get out in order to supply what is lacking in their faith. He wants to minister and bless people and prison is in the way of that. He asks for a door to be opened. For what? for marriage? For a job? No. Paul is praying that a door will be opened to share the gospel. Again, prison is in the way. He doesn’t want to get out of prison for his own sake, but for the sake of others. If Paul was only in it for himself he would not have been in prison at all. All he had to do was be quiet. But his incessant preaching of the gospel landed him in prison.
There is a rule of interpretation that says we should give the same emphasis to a doctrine as scripture gives to it. That is a fantastic rule of thumb. It has proven to be remarkably helpful many times. In this case, I think this rule is pointing out an imbalance in the way many of us pray. It is certainly not wrong to pray for physical healing. Nor is it wrong to pray for a change in your circumstances. We are encouraged to do both of these things in scripture. So my point is not that we should stop those things.
My point is this “Where are all the prayers for our spiritual vitality?” Where are the prayers that it may go well with your soul, or that we may do what is right or that our love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment? Where are the prayers that we may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God or that God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith? Where are those prayers? Where are all the prayers that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored or that we may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ?
Even in the prayers for our circumstances, do these prayers reflect a heart that seeks first the kingdom of God and his righteousness? When we pray for a door to be opened is it for our selfish reasons or is it for the gospel? When we pray for release is it so that we can be comfortable or so that we can minister? When we pray for healing is it so we can lead a pain free life or is it so that we can have the energy to better serve our great God and his people? Our prayers, I am afraid, could use an overhaul.

Category: Sermon Excerpt | No Comments »
Tags: Church, Prayer, Scripture

Posted By Brett on August 26, 2010

I recently came across a top ten list from an atheist who has been very vocal against Christianity. I thought there may be some worth in giving a brief response to the supposed delusions that Christians have. I’ll include his text in full over the next few posts in this series. His points are short and sweet so I’ll try to keep my comments short as well. Here are the first two of his top 10 delusions:

There are so many delusions to mention that it’s hard to choose just ten, and it’s hard to rank them since they’re all equally delusions. But in keeping with David Letterman’s series of top ten lists here they are for your enjoyment:

10) That Ex-Christians like me were never Christians even though we believed and trusted in God for salvation. So let me get this straight, okay? God supposedly promised that if we believe we’ll be saved and yet he never kept his promise–that he never saved us even though we believed!? Such logic as this is the logic of a delusion.

Mocking is no substitute for an argument.

Right out of the gates there is a problem because not all Christians believe the same thing regarding perseverance of the saints. Classical Arminians, for example, would have no problem believing that a person can have genuine faith and then loose it. That seems to be a minority position, so let’s grant for the sake of argument that Christians don’t believe that it is possible to have real faith and then loose it. Consider:

Phenolphthalein is an indicator that is clear in acid solutions but turns pink in basic solutions. Suppose that we have a beaker full of a solution that we believe is basic. When we add the phenolphthalein it should turn pink – but it doesn’t. What should we conclude?

Either the solution was not basic, or we did not add phenolphthalein. Both can’t be true. Suppose that this critic of Christianity performed the same logic in our chemistry example.

So let me get this straight, okay? Phenolphthalein is supposedly assured to turn pink if we put it in a basic solution and yet it never turned pink even though we put it in a basic solution!? Such logic as this is the logic of a delusion.

There is no delusion.

If it doesn’t turn pink then the solution is not basic.

If one does not persevere then he never had true faith.

There is no delusion in this kind of thinking. The delusion is to think that faith is genuine when the evidence says otherwise just the same as it is a delusion to think that the solution was basic when the evidence says otherwise.

9) That Christianity has more credibility to it than Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Orthodox Judaism or Haitian Voodoo. The only reason Christians think their faith has more epistemic warrant is because they are more familiar with it.

He seems to confuse epistemic warrant with general credibility. Anyone that starts with theism in general, I believe has a decent epistemological foundation. But this is different from asking which of these different faiths has more credibility. Just as an example, consider the Book of Mormon Vs the Bible just based on archeological verification. We have not found any of the cities or artifacts that the Book of Mormon talks about. We have, however, found many land formations, cities, inscriptions of people’s names, etc that are in the Bible. There is more credibility for Christianity than Mormonism just on that count alone. Not all faiths are equal (atheism included). Each needs to be evaluated based on its own truth claims and the evidence for or against them.

Category: Apologetics | 2 Comments »
Tags: Atheism

Posted By Brett on August 23, 2010

His Person

The Lord’s Supper is a time of remembrance. I fear that we do not remember as we ought. So often we partake of the elements with almost no thought given to who Jesus is and what he did. It is a part of our service, but it is not a reflective part of our service. We know what it means, and we feign a self-examination to make sure we are partaking in a “worthy” manner. But there is very little thought actually given in genuine remembrance of Christ and his work.

The next time we eat of the Lord’s Supper, I think we ought to actually spend time remembering Jesus. Remember the authority and power of Jesus. Demons shriek in terror and plead for mercy. With one word he sends the demons fleeing. Remember the compassion of Jesus as he healed person after person. Remember Jesus the preacher. He taught everywhere he went. When too many people would gather just to see him perform some miracle without regard to his teaching, he would sneak away during the night to find a new people to whom to preach to.
Remember the boldness of Jesus. He was not afraid of men. He spoke with absolute clarity and conviction without fear of man. He presumed to forgive sins, which God alone can do. He presumed to be Lord of the Sabbath, something only God can claim. He presumed himself to be kind riding on the donkey and receiving a king’s welcome from the people.
Remember the approachability of Jesus. Children would come to sit with him, and the woman with the alabaster flask was unafraid to make a fool of herself for his sake. Remember the fiery words that he spoke to the Pharisees. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. ”
Remember the dedication of Jesus. How he would stay late into the night ministering to people and then leave early the next morning before the sun arose to spend time in prayer. Remember how he would preach for days to the crowds. Often he was without sleep and without food. Remember Jesus.

His Work

Remember his work. Remember the arrest in the garden. Remember the midnight trial before the Sanhedrin. Remember the beating he received and how they mocked him. Remember how everyone fled. Remember the early morning trial in the halls of Pilate and how he caved to political pressure. Remember the blows that he received during the scourging. Whips with metal slugs and bone fragments tied into the leather are brought repeatedly across his back. Remember the soldiers further abuse of him. The mocking, the crown of thorns. Remember the long walk to Golgotha and how he fell under the weight of his cross. Remember the nails driven into his hands and the words of comfort he spoke to the thief.
Contemplate the horrors of that death, and how that was merely a taste of the wrath he experienced at the hands of the Father when he bore the punishment of our sins in his body. He drank the cup of wrath down to the bitter dregs in order that we may never taste of wrath.

His Second Coming

Remember Christ. But as you do, do not forget to remember that he was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He is alive! We do not remember him as a powerful but faint memory from a long time ago. He is alive and he is coming again. This meal that we eat will one day take place in his presence again. He promised his disciples “I will not eat of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew in my Father’’s kingdom. When he comes again we will eat and drink with him.

Category: Ecclesiology, Sermon Excerpt, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Church, Communion, The Lord's Supper

Posted By Brett on August 18, 2010

I am continuing my interaction with the July issue of The Watchtower magazine. In my last post I made the point that the name of God should be considered much more broadly. It is not limited to the vocalization of YHWH, rather when we speak of the name of God we mean the whole of who he is. In this post I want to consider their approach as well as deal with more of the substance of their complaints. In particular, I’d like to address the OT and NT use of God’s name.

_

The Approach

As the article goes on, they construct a theory as to why people don’t use the name “Jehovah.” They say that it is a work of Satan, and that it is done under false religions. They talk about how “apostate Christians” have changed the text. They speak of how “disrespectful” Protestants have been. They say that “Churches have suppressed God’s name in the Bible because of Jewish tradition or even for the sake of profit.” They then insert scary images of religious people.
I don’t think this kind of talk is useful. It serves more to poison the well than it does to encourage good dialog. There may be good reasons why translators do what they do as we will see below.

_

Old Testament

The Hebrew word YHWH appears thousands of times in the Old Testament. As it turns out, the meaning of YHWY is fraught with difficulties. I believe that the best understanding of the name is “I am who I am.” This expresses one of my favorite attributes of God – his self-existence. It expresses his immutability. I tend to favor this understanding since the imperfect qal form of YHWH seems more likely than the hiphil. If I am wrong, however, all is not lost for God’s name is broader than just my understanding of YHWH.

This is the term that the New World Translation renders as Jehovah. Most of the popular English translations, however, render it as LORD. The accusation is that there is a deliberate effort to eliminate the use of God’s name. I don’t think that is true. The Hebrew term Adonai can also be translated as Lord. So in order to maintain a distinction between when the Hebrew uses Adonai and when it used YHWH, these modern translations deliberately set LORD in all caps to signify that it refers to YHWH. So if there is an attempt to hide the name of God they do a very poor job by signaling their readers every time that they do it.

They further assert that translating YHWH as LORD hides “the beauty of God’s personality” and “hinders readers from truly knowing who God is.”  It is difficult to see how this is true. There is an entire Bible that people can read to learn about God. Even so, suppose that we translate the tetragrammaton as LORD or as Yahweh or as Jehovah, or as YHWH, or as יהוה? None of these, by themselves, tell us anything more about God. The meaning of God’s name will have to be explained as in the fist paragraph of this section. If it is the meaning we are after, then the best translation would be “I AM WHO I AM” or something similar. A person has to study the name to know what it means. That is true regardless of whether we translate it as Jehovah or as LORD.

That brings us to how we should translate this Hebrew term. Are we after the meaning? Then it should be “I AM WHO I AM.” Are we after a letter-for-letter transliteration? Then it should be YHWH. Are we after the best transliterated pronunciation? Then it should be Yahweh. Do we want to follow Jesus and the apostles? Then it should be LORD. While we are on the subject, what are we to make of the translation Jehovah?

The term Jehovah did not appear in history until the 14 century (perhaps as early as the 10th century). Around the Dark Ages, the Massorites (Jewish scholars) were making copies of the OT. There was a tradition that the name YHWH should not be pronounced. When someone came to the word YHWH they were to say Adonai instead. Thus when they were making copies the Massorites placed the vowels of Adonai under the name YHWH as a visual reminder not to say the most holy name. Later translators got a hold of this Massoretic text and mistakenly placed the vowels of Adonay (which were under YHWH) into YHWH. Not only were the vowels mistakenly inserted, but the translators also mistakenly replaced the Y with a J. But there is no J in the Hebrew language. It is now widely recognized that “Jehovah” is incorrect and that the correct pronunciation of YHWH is “Yahweh.” So while Jehovah Witnesses object to the translation of LORD, the fact is that they use a mistaken derivation of Lord within their own translation!

_

New Testament

As we transition into the New Testament the Jehovah Witness continue to claim that using Lord instead of “Jehovah” causes confusion.

“For example, a reader may not be able to discern whether the term“Lord” refers to Jehovah or to his Son, Jesus. Thus, in the scripture in which the apostle Peter quotes David as saying: “Jehovah said to my Lord [the resurrected Jesus]: ‘Sit at my right hand,’” many Bible translations read: “The Lord said to my Lord.” (Acts 2:34, NIV)”

The odd thing about their citation of Acts 2:34 is that it reads “οὐ γὰρ Δαυεὶδ ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, λέγει δὲ αὐτός, εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου, κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου.” The Greek term κύριος (kurios) is the Greek word for Lord. Thus the Jehovah Witnesses are insisting that we insert something into scripture that is not there. Why do they insist on translating a word that is not there? Part of their reasoning is that while יהוה is not found in Acts 2:34 it is found in Psalm 110 (which Peter is quoting). That would be fine if we were translating Psalm 110, but we are not, we are translating Acts 2 and the word is κύριος (Lord).

The problem gets worse. The  New World Translation (NWT), the Jehovah Witness Bible, has “Jehovah”in 237 places in the New Testament.But there is not one manuscript that has either יהוה or the Greek transliteration of it.We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts of New Testament books, and yet there is not a single instance of”Jehovah.” Most of these instances are not citations from the Old Testament, so even that explanation won’t work.

Since all these “translations” are not based on the Greek text, nor on a quoted Hebrew passage, it seems that there may be a theological bias in their translation. Jehovah Witness do not believe that Jesus is God. Because of this they insist on keeping Jesus always distinct from Jehovah. In their own words, “a reader may not be able to discern whether the term“Lord” refers to Jehovah or to his Son, Jesus.” That is, unless they change the words of scripture, people may be led to think that Jesus is God. The translation committee, in a surprisingly candid remark, said that they used “Jehovah” to distinguish between the Father and Son. They are not translating based upon what the Greek says, they are “translating” based on what they want the Bible to say about Jesus. This is an unethical move. In fairness, most Jehovah Witnesses are unaware that their organization is changing the words of scripture like that.

A good example is Acts 2:21 which the Watchtower article mentions. It reads “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (κύριος) shall be saved.” Peter is quoting from Joel 2:32 which reads, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD ( יהוה ) shall be saved.” Peter later identifies Jesus as Lord (κύριος) in verse 36. It is tempting to think that the Lord (κύριος) of verse 21 is the same Lord (κύριος) in verse 36. Peter continues on to say that people should repent of their sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus. Again, it is hard to see how the Lord (κύριος) on whose name you are to call for salvation (v21) should be different from the Lord (κύριος) in whose name you are to be baptized and saved (v 36, 38-39). Just reading the text makes it sound like Jesus is the Lord referred to in verse 21 (which is a reference to Yahweh). So to keep people from making that connection the translators change the word Lord to Jehovah.

Again, most Jehovah Witnesses are good, sincere people who are unaware of all the translation and textual problems in the New World Translation. Inserting 237 instances of a word with zero supporting manuscript evidence is a big deal. May God keep us all humble before his Word.

Category: Apologetics, Christology, Theology | 2 Comments »
Tags: Jehovah Witnesses, Kurios, Names of God, translation, Yahweh

Posted By Brett on August 16, 2010

Acknowledgment of Guilt & Judgment

Both of these passages speak of judgment. The flood was brought on mankind because God looked down from heaven and saw that the thoughts of men were only evil continually. The flood was an act of judgment on an evil world.
In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul talks about Israel being baptized into Moses in the sea. This too was an act of judgment. Israel was about to die at the hand of the Egyptian army, and the Egyptians did die as they tried to cross the sea and God shut the way. The ark and the passage through the Red Sea were both paths of salvation through the waters of judgment.
When we, therefore, submit to baptism, we are claiming that we are worthy of death. Baptism is a visual admission that you have sinned, that those sins are worthy of death, and that God would be just if he were to take your life from you right now.
Our court systems are famous for taking forever and consuming massive amounts of money in the process. Do you know why that is? A large part of that is because guilty people refuse to admit their guilt and take responsibility for it. They don’t want to admit to wrong doing. They will fight the charges to the bitter end.
That is the opposite of what Christian baptism should be. We honestly and humbly confess our sins. We admit that they are worthy to be punished. We acknowledge it and we throw ourselves on the mercy of the court. “I am guilty! I know it. Please have mercy on me!” That should be our plea. “Son of David have mercy on me!” That should be our cry.

.

Forgiveness of Sins

When we have come to that point in our life where we recognize our sins, we agree that we are worthy of death, and we call out to Christ Jesus, the judge of the living and the dead, to have mercy on us, then we have forgiveness of sins. Baptism signifies this cleansing.

Baptism signifies this cleansing. We are now seen as clean by God and baptism visually captures that cleaning. This is only positional, however. Gal 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” When we believe and are baptized we are clothed in Christ such that when God looks at us He sees Christ. This is very similar to how the mercy seat was used in the tabernacle. The throne of God was upon the lid of the arc of the covenant. When the ark was sprinkled with blood, it was as if God saw Israel through this shed blood. Now when God sees us, He sees us through the blood of Christ. He sees us clothed in Christ’s righteousness. This is our assurance. On that day we know that we will stand, not because I am so wonderful, but because of Jesus.

.

Acknowledgment of Death

Corresponding to this we are united to Christ and we are buried with him in baptism. Our old nature was crucified with Christ in order that this body of death may be brought to nothing. In baptism, not only do we recognize that we are deserving of death, we also signify the putting to death of our old nature.

Baptism is a big deal because it is here that we put a stake in the ground. It is here that we declare war on the enemy within. It is here that we declare which side we are one. It is here that a fundamental change occurs. Here is where we are confronted with the reality of our choice. It is a bit like marriage. At the wedding we place a stake in the ground and we say, “I am committed to this woman. I am committed to only this woman. I will love her in sickness and health, in wealth and in poverty. I am entering into covenant with this woman and all of you are acting as witnesses to my vows.” We have gotten away from that notion a bit, but we need to regain it. At a wedding we act as witnesses to the vows and we affirm that we will do all that we can to make that marriage last.
So also in baptism. It is a public declaration. Is is a watershed moment in your life. At this point you say before everybody, Henceforth I will live my life anew!” The capturing of your heart and the commitment to this woman existed before the wedding, but at the wedding you make it official. If you do not have that inner commitment, then a marriage ceremony won’t create it. You are baptized because you believe. But if you never really believed, baptism won’t create faith. Whether you have it or not, during that ceremony you are declaring that you do. You are confessing that you are deserving of death, that Jesus has washed you clean, positionally, and that you are now committed to actually cleaning up your act. You were buried with him in baptism, therefore put to death what is earthy within you.

Category: Ecclesiology, Sermon Excerpt, Theology | No Comments »
Tags: Baptism, Church, McCook

Posted By Brett on August 12, 2010

The latest edition of the Watchtower addresses itself to the topic of the name Jehovah. They make some good points but I think there is a lot of misinformation in the article. There is some equivocation that occurs at several points. It is true that God gave to Moses his name as YHWH (in Hebrew). But that is not the only name of God.

___________________________________

Titles and Attributes can be Names

Sometimes we can be guilty of reading our 21 century Occidental understanding of things back into the text of Scripture. I think the hard separation we maintain between a person’s name, title and character is an example.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

These are examples of things that we normally consider as titles, but from a biblical standpoint they are regarded as names. Moreover:

Exodus 34:14 says, “for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”

An obvious ramification of these truths is that God may have more than just one name. For example:

Isaiah 51:15 I am the Lord your God, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name.

Isaiah 57:15 For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy:

Isaiah 63:16 For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

Amos 5:27 and I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.

There are many other names of God such as Adonay, El Shaddai, El Olam, Eloine. YHWH is then combined with many other terms (like Roi, Rapha, Nissi) to further express his characher. There is a danger, therefore of thinking of the name of God too narrowly. It is not just the name YHWH. It is that, but it is more than that.

___________________________________

“Name” May Not Refer to Any Written Name

A name is not merely the letters that compose your identification on a birth certificate. When I say that my father has a good name in the community I do not mean that “Bruce” is an aesthetically pleasing name. Rather it means that he has a good reputation. People know the character and nature of my father (regardless of his given name). When the people began to build the tower of Babel, they reasoned, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” This idea of making a name for oneself is synonymous for creating a certain reputation.

Gen 12: 2 says, “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.”

What does it mean to make his name great? This is more than just the letters of his name.
This is a very similar mistake to what certain “name it and claim it” groups do. They are fond of passages like these:

John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

John 16:24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

They will come to these verses and think that all you have to do is say the name “Jesus” and you have what you want. This is simply not true. The study notes in the ESV state, “His name refers to all that is true about him, and therefore the totality of his person.” Thus to pray in his name is to pray according to the character of God, according to his will (1 Jn 5:14-15). John 14:14 and 16:24 only make sense if “name” does not refer to the name “Jesus” or any other printable name but rather refers to the whole of who Jesus is – his entire being.

Isaiah 53:13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the Lord, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

Of course God already had the name YHWH by the time Isaiah was writing. So it is likely that this passage uses “name” in a way very similar to what we just looked at in John. To make a name for God is to make his nature and character known and does not refer to any specific written name. So while I applaud Jehovah Witnesses for wanting to reclaim then name of God, I think that they have too restricted a view of that. Our understanding of the name of God should be a deep, rich, and expansive understanding that is not limited to just YHWH.

Category: Apologetics, Theology | Comments Off
Tags: Attributes, Jehovah, Jehovah Witnesses, Names of God, Titles, YHWH

Posted By Brett on August 10, 2010

God did not ordain the cross of Christ or create the lake of fire in order to communicate the insignificance of belittling his glory. The death of the Son of God and the damnation of unrepentant human beings are the loudest shouts under heaven that God is infinitely holy, and sin is infinitely offensive, and wrath is infinitely just, and grace is infinitely precious, and our brief life—and the life of every person in your church and in your community—leads to everlasting joy or everlasting suffering. If our preaching does not carry the weight of these things to our people, what will? Veggie Tales? Radio? Television? Discussion groups? Emergent conversations?

God planned for his Son to be crucified (Revelation 13:8; 2 Timothy 1:9) and for hell to be terrible (Matthew 25:41) so that we would have the clearest witnesses possible to what is at stake when we preach. What gives preaching its seriousness is that the mantle of the preacher is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with fire of hell. That’s the mantle that turns mere talkers into preachers. Yet tragically some of the most prominent evangelical voices today diminish the horror of the cross and the horror of hell—the one stripped of its power to bear our punishment, and the other demythologized into self-dehumanization and the social miseries of this world.

Oh that the rising generations would see that the world is not overrun with a sense of seriousness about God. There is no surplus in the church of a sense of God’s glory. There is no excess of earnestness in the church about heaven and hell and sin and salvation. And therefore the joy of many Christians is paper thin. By the millions people are amusing themselves to death with DVDs, and 107-inch TV screens, and games on their cell phones, and slapstick worship, while the spokesmen of a massive world religion write letters to the West in major publications saying, “The first thing we are calling you to is Islam . . . It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.” And then these spokesmen publicly bless suicide bombers who blow up children in front of Falafel shops and call it the way to paradise. This is the world in which we preach.

John Piper, http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2006/1756_Why_Expositional_Preaching_is_Particularly_Glorifying_to_God/

Category: Sermon Excerpt | Comments Off
Tags: Church, Preaching

Posted By Brett on August 5, 2010

The term “doctrine” comes from the Greek word didache which means “teaching.” Doctrine is a set of teachings, or a set of beliefs. Now we all have a set of beliefs, that cannot be helped. We all have doctrine; the question is what kind of doctrine do we have? Is is good biblically informed doctrine? Or is it doctrine baked from our tradition, flavored by our experiences, and served on our desires? We all have doctrine; is it good doctrine or bad doctrine, that is the question.
Ideas have consequences. What you believe about reality effects how you act. There was the idea that babies in the womb go through the evolutionary process. This paved the way for abortion to be legalized in the United States, after all if you kill the baby at this stage you are only killing a fish. The Ideas of Karl Marx gave rise to Communism. The ideas of Frederich Nietzsche gave rise to Hitler’s quest for the super race. Ideas have consequences. What you believe has consequences.

Who we are precedes what we do. All these things derive from within. As Paul points out in Romans 8:7, the mind that is set on the flesh cannot please God. What we think, what we believe, where our mind is set makes a big difference.

Category: Sermon Excerpt, Theology | Comments Off
Tags: Church, Doctrine, Preaching

Posted By Brett on August 3, 2010

What style of worship should we do? This is where the worship wars have been fought. Do you do traditional worship or contemporary worship? I like what Michael Horton has to say about style:

I resist the labels “traditional worship” and “contemporary worship.” Both terms imply that our worship debates are over no more than whether we will dig in our heels or catch up with the times. Our concern, rather, should be to center our services on God—on his speech and action in saving us.Michael Horton, “Beyond Style Wars: Recovering the Substance of Worship” accessed 3/30/10; available from http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9904a.html

I like that concept because it places worship exactly where it needs to be, focused on God. There is more to this discussion of traditional or contemporary, but the point here is to reiterate that worship needs to be needs to be God-centered first.

“Many of our communicants were raised in churches that respected the Bible tremendously but were anticreedal, anti-institutional, antiliturgical, and suspicious of sharp doctrinal distinctives. These folks would once have regarded a church like ours as dead and traditional. Having lived through the charismatic Jesus Movement of the 1970s and the market-driven seeker movement of the 1980s and 1990s, many come to us with little doctrinal background.

Reflecting what we see  in Hebrews chapter 12, our worship, no matter the style, should point people to another world. We need a higher view of God; we need a higher view of worship. Let us not simply do happy clappy music. Let us worship God with excellence in such a way that our worship points to another world. But are all questions of traditional or contemporary out of place? Tim Keller comments:

“When we ignore historic tradition we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people.”Tim Keller, “Evangelistic Worship”; accessed 3/30/10; available from http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/evangelisticworship.pdf

We are part of a very old family. We have an ancient and rich family history. By using God-centered old songs we can keep that solidarity with Christians of the past while singing praises to God. It is a glorification of God that flows from part of who we are as an historic people.
Conversely, we have a large existing family, and it makes sense for us to worship God with a certain amount of the providential cultural flavor that he has blessed us with. If we stay only in the past then we may be wearing blinders to what God is doing in the here and now. We miss that we can add our part of culture to the praise of the universal church in adoration of God alone. In that way God is glorified by people of every tribe, nation, and tongue.

Category: Ecclesiology, Sermon Excerpt | Comments Off
Tags: Contemporary, God-centered, Traditional, Worship